|
|
Bernie Sanders on Principles & ValuesDemocratic primary challenger; Independent VT Senator; previously Representative (VT-At-Large) |
SANDERS: You pick up on what I wrote in a Washington Post op-ed: back in 1994 Newt Gingrich--who I disagree with on everything--had a bold right wing agenda, and I think we should learn from that. This is what the American people want. And we should do it. Poll after poll shows that the American people understand that our current dysfunctional health care system needs fundamental change; that we have to deal with a broken criminal justice system; with immigration reform. The question is whether Congress has the guts to stand up to the big money interests who want more tax breaks for the rich, who want to cut Social Security. Or we stand up for the shrinking middle class and we demand legislation which represents the working families of this country.
SANDERS: What is clear to anyone who looks at where the Democratic Party today is, that the model of the Democratic Party is failing. We have a Republican president who was the most unpopular candidate in modern history. Republicans control the House, the Senate, 2/3 of governor's chairs. And in the last eight years, they have picked up 900 legislative seats. Clearly, the Democratic Party has got to change. And, in my view, what it has got to become is a grassroots party, a party which makes decisions from the bottom on up, a party which is more dependent on small donations than large donations, a party that speaks to the pain of the working class in this country. And when we do that, you're going to see voter turnout swell. You're going to see people coming in and running for office. You're going to see Democrats regain control of Congress.
SANDERS: We are going to do everything that we can to transform the Democratic Party into a party that stands up for working families. And we have and will strongly support those candidates who are going to take on the issues of income and wealth inequality. We are going to work to support progressives who are running for Congress and even who are running for city council.
Q: That sounded like you're going to keep your e-mail list to support the candidates that you think are progressives, and you're not going to give it to the DNC. Did I interpret that incorrectly?
SANDERS: You know, President Trump has more millionaires in his Cabinet and his administration than any president in history. So, what we are going to do is support those candidates who have the guts to stand up to the 1 percent and fight for the 99 percent.
We received more than 13 million votes in primaries and caucuses throughout the country. We won twenty-two states. Importantly, in virtually every state, we won a strong majority of younger people--the future of America.
One poll response: "He's not moving a party to the left. He's moving a generation to the left." This campaign was never just about electing a president of the United States--as enormously important as that was. This campaign was about transforming America.
A great nation is judged not by how many millionaires and billionaires it has, or by the size of its military budget. It is not judged by the greed of its largest corporations. It is judged by how well it treats its weakest and most vulnerable citizens. A truly great nation is one that is filled with compassion and solidarity.
By that measure, we are not number one. In fact, the United States lags behind virtually every other major country on earth in terms of our social safety net and in how well we provide for the weak and the vulnerable.
I hope very much that my campaign for president will not be endlessly discussed from an HISTORICAL perspective, looking back. I hope that my efforts, and the incredibly hard work of hundreds of thousands of grassroots volunteers in every state in our country, will be seen as a turning point in American politics & blueprint for the future.
Q: Senator Sanders, have you established a list of what it means to be a progressive that is unrealistic?
SANDERS: Not at all. The reality is that we have one of lowest voter turnouts of any major country because people have given up on the political process. The reality is there are trillions of dollars going from the middle class to the top 1 percent. The reality is we have a corrupt campaign finance system which separates the people's needs from what Congress is doing. What we have to do is wage a political revolution where we demand the government represent us and not just campaign contributors.
SANDERS: We should not only talk the talk, but walk the walk. I am proud to be the only candidate who does not have a Super PAC, who's not raising huge sums of money from Wall Street and special interests. Never believed it would happen that we have raised 3.5 million individual contributions, averaging $27 dollars a piece. That is what the political revolution means.
SANDERS: It is true. I am the longest- serving independent in the history of the United States Congress. Vermont sent me to Washington as an independent. On the other hand, when I was in the House for 16 years, I caucused with the Democrats. In the Senate for nine years , I caucused with the Democrats. I do want to see major changes in the Democratic Party. I want to see working people and young people come into the party in a way that doesn't exist now. I want a 50-state strategy so the Democratic Party is not just the party of 25 states.
CLINTON: You know, the person who first put out the idea of a 50-state party strategy is former Governor Howard Dean, who is with us tonight.
CLINTON [videotape]: It is rare that we have the opportunity we do now to have a real contest of ideas. To really think hard about what the Democratic Party stands for and what we want the future of our country to look like if we do our part to build it. I am a progressive who gets things done for people.
SANDERS: Secretary Clinton has a long and distinguished public career. I served with her in the Senate. We worked together on some issues. But there are other issues where I think she is just not progressive. I do not know any progressive who has a superPAC and takes $15 million from Wall Street. Secretary Clinton voted to go to war in Iraq. Secretary Clinton has been a supporter of various trade policies, NAFTA and PNTR with China. For a long time, Secretary Clinton was talking about the benefits of the Keystone pipeline. That's just not progressive.
SANDERS: I believe that the power of corporate America, the power of Wall Street, the power of the drug companies, the power of the corporate media is so great that the only way we really transform America and do the things that the middle class and working class desperately need is through a political revolution when millions of people begin to come together and stand up and say: Our government is going to work for all of us, not just a handful of billionaires.
WEBB: I got a great deal of admiration and affection for Senator Sanders, but Bernie, I don't think the revolution's going to come.
Q: What do you mean by "revolution"?
SANDERS: What I mean is that we need to have one of the larger voter turnouts in the world, not one of the lowest. We need to raise public consciousness. We need the American people to know what's going on in Washington in a way that today they do not know.
SANDERS: This is what you do. You say to the speaker of the House, "Hey, you don't want to negotiate with me? I think we should make public colleges and universities tuition free. And I think we should pay for a tax on Wall Street speculation." Now, do I think the Republican speaker of the House will agree with me? No, I don't think so. But I think he'll have to look out the window and see a million young people demonstrating and marching in Washington.
Q: Barack Obama said this.
SANDERS: Here's the difference. The president actually thought that he could sit down with the Republican leadership and work out some fair compromises. The truth is, number one, they never had any intention to compromise. But number two, you have to be prepared to mobilize people to take on these big money interests.
SANDERS: No, not at all. When one of your Republican colleagues gets on the show, do you say, "Are you a capitalist?" Have you ever referred to them as capitalists?
Q: Yeah. Are you a capitalist?
SANDERS: No. I'm a democratic socialist.
SANDERS: Well, look, I am pro-choice. I am strongly in favor of gay marriage. And I know that, at Liberty University, people there have honest disagreements with me on that issue. But what I said, look, at a time when we have a grotesque level of income and wealth inequality, when almost all of the new income and wealth in this country is going to the top 1 percent, when we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country on Earth, can we not get together and talk about creating an economy that works for all of us, and not just millionaires and billionaires?
SANDERS: Well, so long as we know what democratic socialism is. And if we know that in countries, in Scandinavia, like Denmark, Norway, Sweden, they are very democratic countries, obviously. The voter turnout is a lot higher than it is in the US. In those countries, health care is the right of all people. And in those countries, college education is free. In those countries, retirement benefits, childcare are stronger than in the US.
Q: I can hear the Republican attack ad right now: "He wants American to look more like Scandinavia."
SANDERS: That's right. And what's wrong with that? What's wrong when you have more income and wealth equality? What's wrong when they have a stronger middle class in many ways than we do, higher minimum wage than we do, and they are stronger on the environment? We do a lot in our country, which is good, but we can learn from other countries.
Born in Brooklyn, New York, to Jewish immigrants from Poland, Sanders, 73, spent one year at Brooklyn College, graduated from the University of Chicago in 1964 and then moved to Vermont.
A: In Vermont, people understand exactly what I mean. They don't believe that democratic socialism is akin to North Korea communism. When I talk about democratic socialism, what I'm saying is that I do not want to see the US significantly dominated by a handful of billionaire families controlling the economic & political life of the country. That I do believe that in a democratic, civilized society, all people are entitled to health care as a right, all people are entitled to quality education as a right, all people are entitled to decent jobs and a decent income, and that we need a government which represents ordinary Americans and not just the wealthy and the powerful. Very sadly, the corporate media ignores some of the huge accomplishments that have taken place in Scandinavia, with a long history of democratic socialism.
The bad news is that people like the Koch brothers can spend huge sums of money to create groups like the Tea Party. The good news is that, once people understand the right-wing extremist ideology of the Koch brothers, they are not going to go along with their policies. In terms of fundamental economic issues: job creation, a high minimum wage, progressive taxation, affordable college--the vast majority of people are on our side.
One of the goals that I would have, politically, is to reach out to the working-class element of the Tea Party & explain to them exactly who is funding their organization--and explain to them that, on virtually every issue, the Koch brothers and the other funders of the Tea Party are way out of step with what ordinary people want and need
Their real ideology--not the sham philosophy of "states' rights" or "personal responsibility" created for public consumption--reflects the interests of a tiny and very privileged segment of the population. Republicans are faced with the dilemma: How to convince working people and the middle class to vote AGAINST their own best interests. Or, equally important, how to get them not to vote at all. Further, how to deflect attention AWAY from the issues that affect the vast majority of people and around which they could UNITE.
In 1991, I was the only Independent in Congress, the only person outside the 2-party system. I decided to try to bring together the most progressive members so that we could more effectively fight for economic justice.
We formed the Progressive Caucus. Over the years the group grew slowly and steadily, so that by the time our largest battle took place--against Newt Gingrich and his reactionary "Contract with America"--we were 52 members strong. I was elected chairman of the Caucus in 1991 and have held that position since.
The big breakthrough for us came late in the campaign, when we won the endorsement of the Burlington Patrolman's Association. They backed us because I promised to listen to the concerns of cops on the beat and to open serious negotiations with their union.
Election Day--March 3, 1981--was a day I will never forget. We won the working-class wards in the city by two to one. We lost in the wealthier neighborhoods. By the time the last ballot was counted, I had won by fourteen votes. So stunning was the upset that nine years later the state's largest newspaper would still be referring to it as "the story of the decade."
SANDERS [audio recording] One of the reasons the president has been able to move so far to the right is that there is no primary opposition to him. It would do this country a good deal of service if people started contrasting what is a progressive agenda as opposed to what Obama is doing.
Q: That was you in 2011. Do you still think Obama should've been primaried?
SANDERS: We have a right to have differences of opinion. For example, I have disagreed with him very strongly on his views on trade. He is for the TPP. I am against the TPP. He has several years ago continued Bush's tax breaks for the very wealthiest people on this country. I was on the floor for 8-and-a-half hours in disagreement with him. Overall, I think the president has done an outstanding job. And the idea that there can be a primary where different ideas get floated and debated, I don't think that that is terrible.
When I say "won" I am being very overly generous to myself. I was chosen as the candidate unanimously because there was no competition. By day's end, I had embarked on the first political campaign of my life. Despite such inauspicious beginnings, I enjoyed the experience of running for office very much.
We had come such a long way, against such incredible odds. 20 years before, I had run for statewide office and had received 2% of the vote. As I climbed onto the platform for my victory statement, I was now the congressman-elect from the state of VT, the first Independent elected to Congress in 40 years. It was almost incomprehensible.
There were radio, TV, and newspaper interviews to do all across the country. I was a true novelty: the only Independent in Congress AND a socialist.
While my parents were not particularly political, they always voted Democratic, as did virtually the entire
SANDERS: No. I am very proud to be Jewish, and being Jewish is so much of what I am. Look, my father's family was wiped out by Hitler in the Holocaust. I know about what crazy and radical, and extremist politics mean. I learned that lesson as a tiny, tiny child when my mother would take me shopping, and we would see people working in stores who had numbers on their arms because they were in Hitler's concentration camp. I am very proud of being Jewish, and that is an essential part of who I am as a human being.
SANDERS: It's a guiding principle in my life, absolutely, it is. You know, everybody practices religion in a different way. To me, I would not be here tonight, I would not be running for president of the United States if I did not have very strong religious and spiritual feelings. I believe that, as a human being, the pain that one person feels, if we have children who are hungry in America, if we have elderly people who can't afford their prescription drugs, you know what, that impacts you, that impacts me. And I worry very much about a society where some people spiritually say, "it doesn't matter to me, I got it, I don't care about other people." So my spirituality is that we are all in this together and that when children go hungry, when veterans sleep out on the street, it impacts me. That's my very strong spiritual feeling.
SANDERS: You know families exaggerate a little bit. I was a very good athlete. I wouldn't say I was a great athlete. I was a pretty good basketball player. My elementary school in Brooklyn won the borough championship. Hardly worth mentioning, but we did, yes. And, yes, I did take third place in the New York City indoor one mile race. I was a very good long-distance runner. I would say not a great runner, but I was captain of my track team and won a number of cross-country meets and certainly won a whole lot of races. So very good, not great.
Q: If you were elected president, you would be the oldest person elected president. You're going to release your medical records?
SANDERS: Absolutely. I have been blessed with good health and good endurance. And there's nothing in the medical records that is going to surprise anybody.
SANDERS: They wouldn't believe it. I mean, my dad came from Poland at the age of 17 without a nickel in his pocket, couldn't speak English and he never made a whole lot of money. And my brother and I grew up in a three-and-a-half-room rent-controlled apartment in Brooklyn, New York. And we never had a whole lot of money. This would be so unimaginable--the fact that I'm a United States senator would've been beyond really anything that they would have thought possible. The fact that I am running for president, it's certainly something that I don't think they ever believed would've happened.
A: Yes. His father was a Jewish immigrant from Poland, where the Nazis decimated 90% of the Jewish population during the Holocaust. Bernie's father and uncle immigrated to the US and the rest of their family died in Europe. Bernie has said that his Jewish heritage showed him the importance of politics at a young age: "A guy named Adolf Hitler won an election in 1932. He won an election, and 50 million people died as a result of that election in World War II, including 6 million Jews. So what I learned as a little kid is that politics is, in fact, very important."
Q: Since he's Jewish, is Bernie also Israeli?
A: No. Despite false reports to the contrary, Bernie is only a citizen of the United States.
Q: Well, Bernie's Jewish and his family died in the Holocaust. He must support Israel over the Palestinians, right?
A: No. Bernie doesn't "support" Israel over the Palestinians. He believes both have the right to exist, in a two-state solution.
"In the past month, many Senators have asked me about my judicial philosophy. It is simple: fidelity to the law. The task of a judge is not to make the law--it is to apply the law. And it is clear, I believe, that my record in two courts reflects my rigorous commitment to interpreting the Constitution according to its terms; interpreting statutes according to their terms and Congress's intent; and hewing faithfully to precedents established by the Supreme Court and my Circuit Court. In each case I have heard, I have applied the law to the facts at hand."
The Adherents.com website is an independent project and is not supported by or affiliated with any organization (academic, religious, or otherwise).
Such factors as religious service attendance, belief, practice, familiarity with doctrine, belief in certain creeds, etc., may be important to sociologists, religious leaders, and others. But these are measures of religiosity and are usually not used academically to define a person’s membership in a particular religion. It is important to recognize there are various levels of adherence, or membership within religious traditions or religious bodies. There’s no single definition, and sources of adherent statistics do not always make it clear what definition they are using.
The members of the Progressive Caucus share a common belief in the principles of social and economic justice, non-discrimination, and tolerance in America and in our relationships with other countries. We also seek to embody and give voice to national priorities which reflect the interests and needs of all the American people, not just the wealthy and the powerful. Our purpose is to present thoughtful, positive, practical solutions to the problems confronting America and the world. In the post-Cold War era, we believe our nation’s priorities must change with the times and reflect new realities. Accordingly, we support curbs on wasteful, inefficient government spending at the Pentagon and elsewhere, a more progressive tax system in which wealthier taxpayers and corporations pay their fair share, adequate funding for social programs that are designed to extend help to low and middle-income Americans in need, and trade policies that increase the exports of more American products and encourage the creation of jobs and investment in America.
When one reads accounts of Jews in American politics, the common theme is that Jews have achieved prominence in art, literature, academia, certain businesses, and entertainment, but not in politics or government. The Jewish politician was the exception, not the rule.
In the last third of the 20th century, however, that pattern changed. By 2000, Jews had become as prominent in the political realm as they have been in other aspects of American life. And Jewish participation is accepted for the contributions these activists make, not because of their Jewishness. Nothing could symbolize this trend more cogently than the nomination of Joseph Lieberman for vice president in 2000 and the national reaction to his candidacy. [Lieberman says]:
Although politics was not exactly a Jewish profession, individual Jews did throw themsleves into the democratic process. Some were traditional politicians; others machine politicians. Many more, such as Emma Goldman and the radicals of the early 20th century, were inspired by the ideal that they had a duty to repair the world—Tikkun Olam.[This book] provides brief biographical sketches for more than 400 Jews who have played prominent roles in American political life. The roster provides much of the basic information that we felt was previously lacking in one place.Many reasons account for the broader representation of Jews in American civic life today. The forces of antisemitism have been relegated to the extreme margins of society, the principle of meritocracy has increasingly opened the doors of opportunity. Moreover, the idealism and purpose that were spawned by the movements for civil rights, opposition to the war in Vietnam, environmentalism, and other causes drew many Jewish Americans into the political arena. Jews are admonished tp help perfect the world by the ancient wisdom of Rabbi Tarfon, who tells us, “You are not required to complete the task, yet you are not free to withdaw from it.”
The members of the Progressive Caucus share a common belief in the principles of social and economic justice, non-discrimination, and tolerance in America and in our relationships with other countries. We also seek to embody and give voice to national priorities which reflect the interests and needs of all the American people, not just the wealthy and the powerful. Our purpose is to present thoughtful, positive, practical solutions to the problems confronting America and the world. In the post-Cold War era, we believe our nation’s priorities must change with the times and reflect new realities. Accordingly, we support curbs on wasteful, inefficient government spending at the Pentagon and elsewhere, a more progressive tax system in which wealthier taxpayers and corporations pay their fair share, adequate funding for social programs that are designed to extend help to low and middle-income Americans in need, and trade policies that increase the exports of more American products and encourage the creation of jobs and investment in America.
Press Release from 9 Senators: [Cory Booker and 13 co-sponsors] introduced legislation that would block a registry of people based on their religion, race, age, gender, ethnicity, national origin, or nationality. "Religious freedom and freedom from discrimination are fundamental rights central to the very idea of being an American," Sen. Booker said. "Forcing people to sign up for a registry based on their religion, race, or national origin does nothing to keep America secure. It does, however, undermine the freedom of religion guaranteed by our Constitution and promote the false notion that people of certain faiths and nationalities are inherently suspect. Our legislation would block Donald Trump and subsequent administrations from infringing on religious liberty by creating an immigration-related religious registry."
National origin-based immigration registry systems have proven ineffective at combatting terrorism and strengthening national security, but effective at instilling fear in certain communities. The George W. Bush-era National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS), registered over 83,000 individuals from 24 Muslim-majority countries, but yielded zero terrorism convictions.
Opposing argument: (GovTrack.us's analysis of S.54): President Trump pledged during his campaign to institute a temporary ban on all Muslim immigration and Syrian refugees "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." He made good on much of that promise with an executive order suspending America's refugee admission program for 120 days and banning all entry from seven majority-Muslim countries for 90 days. Trump has defended a Muslim registry as necessary to national security. "They have to be [registered]. It's all about management. Our country has no management," he said when first proposing the idea in 2015. Trump reiterated his plans as president-elect in December.
Excerpts from Letter from 17 Senators to Trump Organization: The Trump Organization's continuing financial relationship with President Trump raises concerns about whether it is a pass-through for income that violates the Constitution's two Emoluments Clauses: Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 on foreign Emoluments; and Article II, Clause 7 on domestic Emoluments. Please answer the following questions to help Congress understand:
Legal Analysis: (Cato Institute, "Emoluments Clause vs. Trump Empire," 11/29/16): The wording of the Emoluments clause points one way to resolution: Congress can give consent, as it did in the early years of the Republic to presents received by Ben Franklin. It can decide what it is willing to live with in the way of Trump conflicts. If it misjudges public opinion, it will pay a political price at the next election.
FOIA argument: (ACLU Center for Democracy, "FOIA Request," 1/19/17): We filed our first Freedom of Information Act request of the Trump Era, seeking documents relating President Trump's conflicts of interest relating to his business connections. When Trump took the oath of office, he didn't take the steps necessary to ensure that he and his family's business interests comply with the Constitution. Some have even argued that upon taking the oath of office, the new president is already violating the Emoluments Clause.